Report on planning comparison of VMAT, IMRT and helical tomotherapy for the ESCALOX-trial pre-study
Abstract Background The ESCALOX trial was designed as a multicenter, randomized prospective dose escalation study for head and neck cancer. Therefore, feasibility of treatment planning via different treatment planning systems (TPS) and radiotherapy (RT) techniques is essential. We hypothesized the c...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2020-11-01
|
| Series: | Radiation Oncology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13014-020-01693-2 |
| _version_ | 1811295683862331392 |
|---|---|
| author | Steffi U. Pigorsch Severin Kampfer Markus Oechsner Michael C. Mayinger Petra Mozes Michal Devecka Kerstin K. Kessel Stephanie E. Combs Jan J. Wilkens |
| author_facet | Steffi U. Pigorsch Severin Kampfer Markus Oechsner Michael C. Mayinger Petra Mozes Michal Devecka Kerstin K. Kessel Stephanie E. Combs Jan J. Wilkens |
| author_sort | Steffi U. Pigorsch |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background The ESCALOX trial was designed as a multicenter, randomized prospective dose escalation study for head and neck cancer. Therefore, feasibility of treatment planning via different treatment planning systems (TPS) and radiotherapy (RT) techniques is essential. We hypothesized the comparability of dose distributions for simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) volumes respecting the constraints by different TPS and RT techniques. Methods CT data sets of the first six patients (all male, mean age: 61.3 years) of the pre-study (up to 77 Gy) were used for comparison of IMRT, VMAT, and helical tomotherapy (HT). Oropharynx was the primary tumor location. Normalization of the three step SIB (77 Gy, 70 Gy, 56 Gy) was D95% = 77 Gy. Coverage (CVF), healthy tissue conformity index (HTCI), conformation number (CN), and dose homogeneity (HI) were compared for PTVs and conformation index (COIN) for parotids. Results All RT techniques achieved good coverage. For SIB77Gy, CVF was best for IMRT and VMAT, HT achieved highest CN followed by VMAT and IMRT. HT reached good HTCI value, and HI compared to both other techniques. For SIB70Gy, CVF was best by IMRT. HTCI favored HT, consequently CN as well. HI was slightly better for HT. For SIB56Gy, CVF resulted comparably. Conformity favors VMAT as seen by HTCI and CN. Dmean of ipsilateral and contralateral parotids favor HT. Conclusion Different TPS for dose escalation reliably achieved high plan quality. Despite the very good results of HT planning for coverage, conformity, and homogeneity, the TPS also achieved acceptable results for IMRT and VMAT. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT 01212354, EudraCT-No.: 2010-021139-15. ARO: ARO 14-01 |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T05:37:07Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ebfba09ba8374b9db045bf2b4f8c948a |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1748-717X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T05:37:07Z |
| publishDate | 2020-11-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Radiation Oncology |
| spelling | doaj.art-ebfba09ba8374b9db045bf2b4f8c948a2022-12-22T03:00:15ZengBMCRadiation Oncology1748-717X2020-11-0115111010.1186/s13014-020-01693-2Report on planning comparison of VMAT, IMRT and helical tomotherapy for the ESCALOX-trial pre-studySteffi U. Pigorsch0Severin Kampfer1Markus Oechsner2Michael C. Mayinger3Petra Mozes4Michal Devecka5Kerstin K. Kessel6Stephanie E. Combs7Jan J. Wilkens8Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), School of Medicine, Klinikum Rechts Der IsarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), School of Medicine, Klinikum Rechts Der IsarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), School of Medicine, Klinikum Rechts Der IsarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital ZurichDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), School of Medicine, Klinikum Rechts Der IsarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), School of Medicine, Klinikum Rechts Der IsarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), School of Medicine, Klinikum Rechts Der IsarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), School of Medicine, Klinikum Rechts Der IsarDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), School of Medicine, Klinikum Rechts Der IsarAbstract Background The ESCALOX trial was designed as a multicenter, randomized prospective dose escalation study for head and neck cancer. Therefore, feasibility of treatment planning via different treatment planning systems (TPS) and radiotherapy (RT) techniques is essential. We hypothesized the comparability of dose distributions for simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) volumes respecting the constraints by different TPS and RT techniques. Methods CT data sets of the first six patients (all male, mean age: 61.3 years) of the pre-study (up to 77 Gy) were used for comparison of IMRT, VMAT, and helical tomotherapy (HT). Oropharynx was the primary tumor location. Normalization of the three step SIB (77 Gy, 70 Gy, 56 Gy) was D95% = 77 Gy. Coverage (CVF), healthy tissue conformity index (HTCI), conformation number (CN), and dose homogeneity (HI) were compared for PTVs and conformation index (COIN) for parotids. Results All RT techniques achieved good coverage. For SIB77Gy, CVF was best for IMRT and VMAT, HT achieved highest CN followed by VMAT and IMRT. HT reached good HTCI value, and HI compared to both other techniques. For SIB70Gy, CVF was best by IMRT. HTCI favored HT, consequently CN as well. HI was slightly better for HT. For SIB56Gy, CVF resulted comparably. Conformity favors VMAT as seen by HTCI and CN. Dmean of ipsilateral and contralateral parotids favor HT. Conclusion Different TPS for dose escalation reliably achieved high plan quality. Despite the very good results of HT planning for coverage, conformity, and homogeneity, the TPS also achieved acceptable results for IMRT and VMAT. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT 01212354, EudraCT-No.: 2010-021139-15. ARO: ARO 14-01http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13014-020-01693-2Dose escalationHead and neck cancerCombined chemoradiation therapyRT planning comparisonIMRTVMAT |
| spellingShingle | Steffi U. Pigorsch Severin Kampfer Markus Oechsner Michael C. Mayinger Petra Mozes Michal Devecka Kerstin K. Kessel Stephanie E. Combs Jan J. Wilkens Report on planning comparison of VMAT, IMRT and helical tomotherapy for the ESCALOX-trial pre-study Radiation Oncology Dose escalation Head and neck cancer Combined chemoradiation therapy RT planning comparison IMRT VMAT |
| title | Report on planning comparison of VMAT, IMRT and helical tomotherapy for the ESCALOX-trial pre-study |
| title_full | Report on planning comparison of VMAT, IMRT and helical tomotherapy for the ESCALOX-trial pre-study |
| title_fullStr | Report on planning comparison of VMAT, IMRT and helical tomotherapy for the ESCALOX-trial pre-study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Report on planning comparison of VMAT, IMRT and helical tomotherapy for the ESCALOX-trial pre-study |
| title_short | Report on planning comparison of VMAT, IMRT and helical tomotherapy for the ESCALOX-trial pre-study |
| title_sort | report on planning comparison of vmat imrt and helical tomotherapy for the escalox trial pre study |
| topic | Dose escalation Head and neck cancer Combined chemoradiation therapy RT planning comparison IMRT VMAT |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13014-020-01693-2 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT steffiupigorsch reportonplanningcomparisonofvmatimrtandhelicaltomotherapyfortheescaloxtrialprestudy AT severinkampfer reportonplanningcomparisonofvmatimrtandhelicaltomotherapyfortheescaloxtrialprestudy AT markusoechsner reportonplanningcomparisonofvmatimrtandhelicaltomotherapyfortheescaloxtrialprestudy AT michaelcmayinger reportonplanningcomparisonofvmatimrtandhelicaltomotherapyfortheescaloxtrialprestudy AT petramozes reportonplanningcomparisonofvmatimrtandhelicaltomotherapyfortheescaloxtrialprestudy AT michaldevecka reportonplanningcomparisonofvmatimrtandhelicaltomotherapyfortheescaloxtrialprestudy AT kerstinkkessel reportonplanningcomparisonofvmatimrtandhelicaltomotherapyfortheescaloxtrialprestudy AT stephanieecombs reportonplanningcomparisonofvmatimrtandhelicaltomotherapyfortheescaloxtrialprestudy AT janjwilkens reportonplanningcomparisonofvmatimrtandhelicaltomotherapyfortheescaloxtrialprestudy |